Re: Discussing new API proposals

On 17/07/2013 2:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) wrote:
> piranna@gmail.com [mailto:piranna@gmail.com] :
>> I agree, it was supossed to have operative DataChannels last December, and the fact is that 7 months ago the proposed date they are fairly useless and real-world usage of WebRTC
>> are mainly proof of concept... I have ear people saying WebRTC is a hype and others that's a technology could get to be desacredited due to release it too early as it's hapenning
>> now, only don't now if just by an unlucky accident or it's being done this way in purposse (too much decentrliced power on the browsers out of control of the traditional owners...).
> Picking something as complex as SCTP-over-DTLS as the "simple" approach to data channels explains the delay a lot better than conspiracy does. Perhaps, like other parts of the spec, this should be revisited with an eye toward picking something that is easy to implement and deploy, rather than picking the latest shiny protocol gadget off the shelf and trying to make it work for this use case.
>
> Matthew Kaufman

     I just want to point out that you are mentioning two separate 
things here:

 1. Complexity of API: Leading to resistance by end-users.
 2. Complexity of implementation: Leading to resistance by
    implementors/integrators.

     I have not heard of #2, though maybe that is because public-webrtc 
discussions are limited to #1.

Gili